Talk:New Zealand art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Image copyright problem with Image:Ritaangus.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Ritaangus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance to article[edit]

It would be great to see more info about the variety of art forms in enzed. we have film, music, theatre, new media, inter and multi-disciplinary areas for a start... must re-read the article again, but first pass indicates glaring needs; 'nz art is visual art' do blind people and musicians get ignored? what about kinethetics and texture? art was 'done' here as soon as Europeans arrived... ok I know, put my money where my mouth is and edit, but i'm an artist, both visual and aural, and I might be biased/prejudiced and have all my work cut to pieces, so how about someone else do it? the problem with that is that there hardly is anyone else with necessary passion and skill to run that gauntlet for this tiny country of ours.. i hope someone does though.Paul Moss (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agreed the title is currently confusing.
See Visual arts of the United States (Art of the United States redirects there), Canadian art, Art of Australia for comparisons. Seems that the non-specific Canadian and Australian articles focus on visual art. I would think we could avoid any problem by making the NZ article more clearly titled like the US example. Music of New Zealand and Cinema of New Zealand already exist. Lanma726 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to the article being renamed, but the bulk of articles dealing with the visual arts (and sculpture) for each country are titled "Art of Country" or "Nationality art", according to Category:Art by nationality.-gadfium 05:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So for my (and maybe others') clarification, which of these should/will the article include:
  • Paintings (yes?)
  • Sculpture (yes?)
  • Architecture (not sure)
  • Film (not sure)
  • music (probably not?)
Once we have clarified this, the introductory paragraph (and maybe the article title) should reflect this. Lanma726 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
My interpretation would be painting, sculpture, installation art, photography, and other visual art media (collage, mosaic etc.) It should exclude film and performing arts (which also need work on their articles!). dramatic (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What about architecture (I'm thinking it fits in with the same group as sculpture)? Do we have consensus? Lanma726 (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think architecture, film or music should be covered by this article. Painting, sculpture, and photography are fine.-gadfium 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As said, I do not have a strong opinion either way. For discussion (see Fine art), what about dance? I do feel that the title Art of New Zealand is not completely accurate anymore (I apologise for being pedantic), worse yet, I'm not even sure Fine art of New Zealand or Visual art of New Zealand would be anymore accurate. If I am the minority, I am happy to shut up. Lanma726 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this conversation has happened somewhere else before on Wikipedia Lanma726 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
hopefully.. I dont see how a title that is clearly top level and ALL inclusive can allow exclusion of entire sections of the subject, isnt it logical to have a top level article covering all sections with links out to each article that deals with each section in depth? or does wikipedia do it differently, maybe i missed something.Paul Moss (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)